Do you have some sort of hard-and-fast rule that emotion is inappropriate in public communication? I don't see why...even if Harris was feigning outrage, a practice as revolting as honor killing seems to merit it.

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you, but I do think this is a weakness in Harris' argumentation, if not his argument.

On the one hand, he accuses people like Deepok (in the debate recently talked about here) of being deceptive by happily allowing people to assume that when Deepok says "god" he means the same thing as most of his audience means by that word -- when in fact, he does not.

Here we have Harris insisting on framing this argument as one about morality, and absolute morality, when in fact he personally defines this concept in a specific way that perhaps most other people do not identify with. Sure, he isn't making it secret... but on the other hand, why is he deliberately framing it this way, when it will undoubtedly muddy the waters and leave many people happily assuming he means one thing when he really means something else?

Harris has an answer to this question, though. I believe it is found mainly in this paragraph:

"...'morality' (whatever people’s associations with this term happen to be) really relates to the intentions and behaviors that affect the wellbeing of conscious creatures. And, as I pointed out at TED, all the people who claim to have alternative sources of morality (like the Word of God) are, in every case that I am aware of, only concerned about wellbeing anyway: They just happen to believe that the universe functions in such a way as to place the really important changes in conscious experience after death (i.e. in heaven or hell). And those philosophical efforts that seek to put morality in terms of duty, fairness, justice, or some other principle that is not explicitly tied to the wellbeing of conscious creatures—are, nevertheless, parasitic on some notion of wellbeing in the end.."

So in this case, his claim is that even though people may choose to think of morality as having to do with religion or creation stories or magical thinking, or they may mistakenly think the whole concept of morality is somehow ruled out by science... they are wrong; what they in fact are talking about, in any circumstance in which morality comes into play, is the same thing as him: the wellbeing of conscious creatures. This his is claim.

But then on the other hand, when it comes to other issues (incidentally, other issues also not a mile away from the bogey man of ethnocentrism which Harris is sort of being accused of by critiques of his ideas on this matter), we have Harris saying that the reason why religion is bad is because it has the potential to motivate people to do bad things like nothing else can.

His critics say that there are social, economic, political, etc., pressures that are really the root cause of violent religious extremists. But Sam Harris knows otherwise. How? Because the violent religious extremists say that they are acting because of religion. (And if you asked them, they would also say that they get their morality from their creator, and that science has no say in it).

I don't know if Sam has a double standard, or if there is a legitimate reason to differentiate between what people say and what we think they really mean or what is really effecting those beliefs, psychologically or neurologically speaking. Intuitively, I agree with madnak that (paraphrasing) Sam Harris has a good point, but is obscuring it with a lot of bull****.

This issue truly is one that I'd like to spend time to carefully think through before jumping in a debate. It is just far far too easy to pop off an answer off the top of your head, or based on a gut reaction to the TED talk or his repsonse, but I think perhaps as much as any other deeply personal issue I can think of, this is so fraught with a variety of biases that it calls for a re-examination from first principles (at least, for me; I'm sure some of your are much more in tune with your own thoughts and ideals, etc.) to figure out what really makes sense.

Harris -
"...'morality' (whatever people’s associations with this term happen to be) really relates to the intentions and behaviors that affect the wellbeing of conscious creatures."


This idea reminds me of the common assertion that all of our actions are in one way or another based on self interest. In explaining everything I'm not sure it really explains very much.


PairTheBoard

Nice post, and an interesting conversation in general. Given the conversation you guys were having, I'd like to see Aaron address smth in this post besides the first line.

This is exactly right. Harris just makes a bunch of assertions and appeals to emotion, worst talk by him I've seen and to be honest lost a bit of respect for him. Wouldnt have thought him capable of that kind of nonsense in a prepared speech.

The reason I thought his talk was terrible is precisely the reason I will refuse your request.

No rules but I assume he would have shown his emotion on this matter at some earlier time. Why, after years of going over despicable acts such as honor killings, does it finally hit him on stage at TED? I personally don't think he was getting choked up but I can see how someone would take it that way. As mentioned before, he seems sick during the talk and snorts, sniffles and clears his throat all the way through.

Well, the problem is that the first line reveals the position as completely arbitrary. So if it's completely arbitrary, then there needs to be a reason for me to care what he can measure.

--

The rest of it comes down to a question of correspondence. You're seeking two different types of correspondence: Internal-internal, and internal-external.

Internal-internal = The state of the brain corresponds to the experience that the brain is creating.

Internal-external = The state of the brain corresponds to the experience that is being given to the brain.

1) Harris claims to hear a ringing sound, otologist finds a particular injury. This is internal-internal correspondence. The injury to the brain is creating a sensation within the brain.

2) Harris claims to hear a ringing sound, otologist is running a device that creates a ringing sound. This is internal-external correspondence. The brain is creating a sensation that matches what is being given to the brain.

3) Harris claims not to hear a ringing sound, otologist is running a device that creates a ringing sound. This is internal-external non-correspondence. The brain is not creating a sensation that matches what is being given to the brain. In this case, we reject the internal because we have an external perspective to compare it to.

4) Harris claims not to hear a ringing sound, otologist is not running a device that creates a ringing sound. We have internal-external correspondence. There is no ringing sound that is being fed into the brain, and the person is not hearing a ringing sound.

5) Harris claims not to hear a ringing sound, otologist finds an injury that is known to correspond to a ringing sound. But here there is *still* internal-external correspondence. There is no external device creating a ringing sound, and the brain is not giving the experience of a ringing sound. The fact that a particular injury is known to be there does not create an internal-external dissonance. Therefore, there's no reason to insist that there *MUST* be an internal problem (perception of sound is wrong).

As for the split-brain stuff, you are now faced with a clear internal-internal dissonance. The brain is giving two contradictory perceptions. This is definitely a problem, but a problem of a different type (and not relevant to the current direction of the discussion).

In particular, this is a different problem than the particular example presented.

The wife and friends are commenting on an external *BEHAVIOR* (not an *EXPERIENCE*) that seems to be in contradiction with an internal *PERSPECTIVE* (not an *EXPERIENCE*). Similarly,

Notice that you're talking about a person's self-*PERSPECTIVE* and not a self-*EXPERIENCE*. (Edit: To clarify, you're talking about a reflective state and not an experiential state. One is looking backwards and performing a reconstruction, and the other is real time.)

Blind-sight has to do with internal-external correspondence, which isn't the one that is relevant.

Harris and the question "How can you derive an 'ought' from an 'is'?"

The Worst Possible Misery for Everyone - (Getting from “is” to “ought” 1.0)

Fact #3 is absolutely wrong. I stopped reading there. This guy has no clue and I'm surprised how much respect I've lost based on this one thing. Has he never even thought to look at the moral values that different cultures adopt?

I think this makes his reasoning look much worse, and by not actually defining misery (in the same way he never defines well-being) he's not actually answering any of the objections that have been raised.

Edit: A little more explicitly

If "worst possible misery" is not defined, then it makes no sense to talk about things which potentially lead there. Then there is also the question of what it means "for everyone" compared to what it means "for the individual." There are behaviors which impact the individual's sense of misery (say, a heavy tax on the rich) that can arguably be used to lessen misery "for everyone" in some aggregate sense. Without clarity on either of these two phrases, it's not possible to make sense of what he means.

There's been a fair bit of "I've lost respect for Sam Harris" in this thread. I'm honestly unclear on how writing a book on atheism qualifies him as a prominent intellectual meriting attention in the first place. (Does he have other accomplishments? I haven't read his book.) Given that most of the "logical" arguments for atheism are quite obvious and well-trod, it doesn't seem like a great spot for demonstrating superior intellectual firepower. Is all the love really just because he was highly successful at preaching to the choir?

I'm not following...? Could you be more explicit please?

He recently obtained a Ph.D in Neuroscience and I think his forthcoming book is largley based on this along with his philosophical background (BA).

I share gumpzilla's sentiment. But isn't it also worth noting that only a tiny % of the population is likely to be receptive to moral arguments that you guys find persuasive?

I.e. if Harris just wants to influence culture, it might be correct (vis-a-vis that goal) to frequently beg the question, or even assert falsehoods. (Edit - it seems to me pretty obvious that this is in fact his goal, maybe I'm missing something.)

The thing you're missing is that if this is the case, then he's an intellectual hypocrite. He using a method that runs contrary to the methods he is purporting to claim (honest intellectual discussion).

But my point is this: suppose Harris wants to maximize his cultural impact, not the sophistication/correctness of his arguments. Then of course he cannot meet the empirical standards of strict intellectual honesty! He needs talking points that can survive in the shallow water of mainstream culture.

Perhaps vhawk01 and madnak reserve the bulk of their respect for people who aspire to persuade the reality-based community, not society at large. But then, as with gumpzilla, I'm curious why they ever respected Harris?

Personally, I think Harris is a ridiculously talented communicator...and I have a huge amount of respect for him on those grounds.

Right, all religions are bad, except my religion. Government programs are bad, except the government programs that benefit me. Irrational thinking and fuzzy logic and appeals to emotion are wrong and lead to suicide bombings...except the ones that I use. Maybe it was me but I didnt see Harris as a demogogue on first blush.

He had clever and original ways of phrasing them, and at least for me even a few arguments I hadn't considered. He seemed like a sharp guy willing to say unpopular things when consistency of principle demanded it.

Now its "well what do you expect, no one gets elected to be President unless he lies about everything, Hope and Change for everyone!" No thanks.

Hmm, that's weird...nothing in his TED talk struck me as out of character. In fact the opposite---my strongest impression was what a natural progression it was from his earlier polemic!

I'm curious about madnak's opinion.

Of course you're caricaturing, but mainstream discourse is so disconnected from empirical criteria that one scarcely needs to lie to succeed. It's just a game. ("I never told the truth so I can never tell a lie", etc.)

I don't much care about credentials, I've known too many moron PhDs. He's sharp, well-spoken, and original in my experience, and here he strikes me as none of the above.

He's couching this as a philosophical basis and even as a response to Hume. Expediency doesn't cut muster here. Even if it did, you're saying he's basically being intellectually dishonest so the dummies will like him better. Maybe so, maybe he's even right to do so, but I don't respect him for it.

The way Fact #3 is worded, I suspect Harris takes it to be practically a truism. Why do you think it is wrong?